LLWM

What part is the flaw?

Insurers adjusting policies to accurately reflect risk is fantastic. They already do it now with haphazard accuracy - I get a partial rebate on any farm share or gym membership, and smoking cessation programs are on their dime completely.

I don't believe it is acceptable for there to be information asymmetry in the first place. Arguing about what to do when it's there is about as fruitful as arguing about how hard you should be allowed to beat your slaves.

Whether it's detrimental is unclear. Although there are exceptions, of course, it seems fair to say that, as a general rule, people with a lot of money tend to be better educated, more intelligent, and more hardworking than those with no money. Like I said, for them to have more access to speech has been true for the entirety of human history, and it hasn't been that bad.

Your example only makes sense to you because you assume that the child could sell the diamond for enough money to buy the pie from you (or from someone else who has just as good of a pie) and have some left over. In the actual situation under discussion, there is no such option.

If that's not the case and you really would only part with the pie for that high of a price, and no other pie will do for the child, then what is there to complain about? How much do you think it costs to buy a pie made by, say, Gordon Ramsay? Feel free to replace with someone who is actually a good chef and not just a famous one if I made a poor choice.

As opposed to the entirety of legal history before 2010, when rich newspaper owners had just as much power to exercise free speech as scruffy-looking homeless people?

If documentation doesn't match behavior, and you're not going to change the behavior, change the documentation.

Because the DEA is so obviously wrong that anyone who takes their side must be an astroturfer. How could a real person agree with them? I mean, other than the real people who work at the DEA. Or work with them. And the policymakers they are following the orders of. And the people who voted for those policymakers.

And that is only a problem because the enforcement capacity does not exist to pull over every person who makes an illegal lane change. The solution is, as always, more surveillance.

It's much simpler than that. Their marketing team gets their material from the R&D team, and neither group knows about the NSLs, because why would they? Only compliance and a few people on legal know, and everyone hates them already anyway.

Most people give their data willingly because they get something worthwhile in exchange. The store cards exist because people trade tracking of their purchase data for discounted prices. Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.

Those rights will be taken about as seriously as the EU's "right to be forgotten".

Inequality is only a temporary phenomenon because information collection, storage, and processing is too expensive to be costless to the average person. That will not always be the case.

More competition is good for consumers.

So you are blaming the fund managers for your government's problems?

The supreme court also once ruled that black people could not be citizens and had no standing to sue in court. That's the problem of depending on interpretation. If a right to privacy is important, it should be explicit.

Real 9/11 with airplanes happened. Were airplane manufacturers sanctioned?

As long as you recognize it's still evil.

Ah, the good old two-wrongs-make-a-right school of morality.

The NSA is very explicit that their goal is to perform legal surveillance to safeguard the security of the US. Since the truth is secret, to believe either party's goals are as they say is purely a matter of trust.

And why do you think he did that?

Anything could be argued. Doesn't mean there's any actual basis for the argument.

Just imagine a high-pitched British voice calling everything "fucking horrifying" while tossing in random internet references every 5 minutes.

That's not an argument against mass surveillance. Collecting evidence you are a child molestor, aka lying and saying you did, only requires targeted surveillance.

I don't think anyone is surprised at this point that they interpret their mission as broadly as they can possibly justify. The NSA are singlehandedly tearing down the stereotypes of lazy government workers.

Sex. You know what you have to do.

To the contrary. It was nearly a miracle that it was maintained as long as it was, considering how underappreciated the developers were.

The Security Now show from the week after the event had a pretty thorough recounting of what happened. I'd recommend starting there.

The developers themselves have clarified. Software that is not actively maintained should be assumed to be insecure.

It is resolved. Just not in the way you want.

Why do hn users refuse to pay for content they want?